Michigan has been at the forefront of reforming its retirement system  for state employees. It is time to do the same for the state-run school employee pension plan.

In 1996, Michigan was one of the first government pension systems to convert to a defined-contribution 401(k) plan — but it only applied to those who work for the state itself, not school employees. All new state employees hired since then are offered up-front contributions to individual retirement accounts. Those hired previously are covered by a conventional defined-benefit system, with pension fund contributions calculated by actuaries using assumptions imposed by politicians.

State governments are notoriously bad at estimating how much will be needed to cover a lifetime of future pension payments for retired employees, and politicians are even worse at actually providing the required contributions in annual budgets. After decades of shortchanging these contributions, most states are now burdened with massively underfunded pension systems.

With its 1996 state employee reforms, Michigan has saved itself up to $4 billion in unfunded liabilities. The system is still underfunded, but less so than many other states.

Last year, Michigan took another big step toward long-term fiscal sustainability by also reforming the health benefits the Legislature has chosen to give retired state employees, following the lead of some of the state’s local governments.

By offering a defined-contribution plan and cutting back on retiree health expenses, Michigan has been a leader in government pension reform. But this has only applied to the retirement system  for state employees. No comparable reforms have been enacted in the system  for school employees, which has accumulated an unfunded liability four times larger than the state plan.

The school employee retirement system is both over-promised and underfunded. It’s also unfair to taxpayers, providing benefits that few in the private sector receive, and it's imposing unsustainable burdens on local school budgets, requiring districts to contribute an amount equal to quarter of an employee’s salary into the fund (which could be better spent educating students). Enacting anything less than the reforms already in place for state workers should be considered a failure.

In the past, the National Education Association has made a point to highlight that many of its members consider themselves “conservative.” Those conservative teachers, however, may raise their eyebrows over some of the organizations their national union financially supports.

The Michigan Education Association and NEA conceded that a large percentage of teachers are conservative in their October 2010 magazine.

It posted NEA statistics that found 45 percent of teachers under 30 classified themselves as conservative and 63 percent of teachers aged 40 to 49 classified themselves as conservatives.

Yet, many of those organizations that received money from the NEA describe themselves as improving America through “progressive ideas and action.”

The Education Intelligence Agency recently posted where the $18.8 million in contributions the National Educational Association made for the 2010 fiscal year year went. The website claims all the contributions were paid for with members’ dues money.

The National Education Association gave $100,000 to Media Matters and $10,000 to Progress Michigan.

Progress Michigan describes its mission as “the promotion of progressive ideas” and to “build grassroots support for progressive ideas” and challenge “conservative propaganda in the media.”

Media Matters describes its mission as “correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

There was a $250,000 donation to the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, located in East Lansing. The Great Lakes Center is funded by labor unions and many of its reports echo the stances of the public school unions whose members serve as chairman and trustees.

The NEA did give $20,000 to Republican Main Street Partnership, which was founded to “promote thoughtful leadership in the Republican Party.” The Republican Main Street Partnership has been described as a lobbying group for “moderate” Republicans.

Sara Robertson, spokesman for the NEA, was asked to list one conservative organization the NEA supported financially. Robertson emailed that she would respond but hadn’t after three days.